Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 89 - Being unfit for duty

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Jimmy Hood: I am sorry that I was unable to be here this morning, but it was my colleague's turn. I understand that he encouraged Committee members not to drift into irrelevance and repetition during stand part debates. I am thankful that he drew that to Committee members' attention, and I shall watch for it rather closely over the next few hours.

Anne McIntosh: May I warmly welcome you back, Mr. Hood? It is a great pleasure to see you occupying the Chair again, and we shall observe your strictures with the usual health warning because we obviously do not want to incur your wrath in any shape or form.
 We had literally 90 seconds to discuss the clause in our previous sitting before the bell tolled. Conservative Members wish to record their support for part 5 in so far as it applies to flight and cabin crew, air traffic controllers and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in the United Kingdom. We also welcome the fact that it applies to the crew of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever in the world they might be. 
 I referred to the Government's consultation. I shall deal with the definition of a person who is ''unfit for duty'' in relation to aircraft and to other modes of transport. The Committee will recall that I declared an interest in British Airways. It has come to my attention from the newspapers that the pilot who was under investigation at the start of our consideration has lost his rather well-paid—£100,000 a year—posting. That was because he consumed the equivalent of one glass of wine before he checked in to fly back from Sweden—that was an expensive experience for him. 
 The Road Traffic Act 1988, which we discussed this morning, sets out requirements governing offences involving the influence of drink or drugs on a person when using a motor vehicle. The blood alcohol limit prescribed is 
''80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood''—
 0.8 promille. Under the Act, the police may require a sample of breath, blood or urine for testing. We shall discuss limits in more detail later and we have tabled an amendment relating to that. A person is deemed unfit to drive if he or she is above the limit and drives, attempts to drive, or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. 
 The Transport and Works Act 1992 covers offences involving the use of drink or drugs by those employed to provide public transport by rail, tram or other guided transport systems. As under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the prescribed blood alcohol limit is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, although the rail companies have agreed an alcohol action level of 0.29 promille. The Act allows the police to require a sample of breath, blood or urine for testing. 
 Rail travel legislation applies to any staff with power to affect the movement of a vehicle, for example, a driver or conductor, but also covers maintenance staff. In addition, an obligation is placed on the operator of the transport system to exercise due diligence to ensure that drink or drug offences are not committed by the staff that the operator employs in those capacities. 
 Following the Marchioness disaster, drink and drug use in the maritime industry has been examined. We support the call for action. Research was undertaken on the scope of the problem, and the measures that could be taken to deal with it. In the view of the Government, the results were largely inconclusive. The way forward is still being considered. When we consider the other clauses flowing from part 5, the function or activity being performed by the member of personnel in question will be relevant. 
 In July 1996, some considerable time ago, the then Government undertook the initial consultation. It is important that the Committee ponder for a moment why it was felt that the consultation was necessary. It was the result of the safety recommendation of the aviation accident investigation branch and the joint aviation requirement on commercial air transportation that had recently been adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities. The introduction of provisions on alcohol and drug testing of safety-critical personnel in civil aviation was deemed to be worthy of review. 
 As with the maritime industry, it is safety-critical personnel who are particularly important in relation to this matter. Under article 57 of the Air Navigation Order 1995, it is an offence for anyone to act as the member of an aircraft crew. Under article 85, it is an offence for an air traffic controller or a maintenance engineer to operate while under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his or her capacity to act. However, the order did not set a blood alcohol limit or provide for testing people suspected of a drink or drugs offence. I am delighted that there is lot of common ground between the then Government and the present Government in that regard. 
 Following a light aircraft accident in 1991, the aviation accident investigation branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority initiate action to amend article 57 of the Air Navigation Order to require air crews suspected of an offence under the article to provide a sample for testing. The Civil Aviation Authority accepted the recommendation at that time, but could not make the changes under section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, under which the order was made, unless it was amended to provide the necessary power to make provision for drink and drug tests. 
 I referred earlier to the Joint Aviation Authorities' adoption of the joint aviation requirement on commercial air transportation. I know that you do not, Mr. Hood, like me to use jargon, so I give the full title; it is called JAR-OPS in the jargon. It was adopted in, I think, 1996 and had to be implemented by 1 April 1998. In addition to imposing more general requirements, it stated that crew members should not commence a flying duty with a blood alcohol level. It set out what that level was. That provision was agreed after extensive consultation and it effectively represented a zero alcohol limit. I recall that on Second Reading the Liberal Democrats hinted that they would like a zero rate. We would not support that as it is totally impractical.

Don Foster: Although there are arguments that justify a zero limit, the hon. Lady will be aware, from the Order Paper, that we have submitted amendments in relation to drivers and other categories of people that would reduce the limit to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. We think that that would be the most appropriate level.

Anne McIntosh: That will be a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I understand that a substanceperhaps ethanolexists naturally in the blood and that even legal medicines may contribute to a test registering above zero. That has a bearing on what the Liberal Democrats said on Second Reading.

Andrew Murrison: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a way around the conundrum would be to establish limits with a base in the evidence, not in empirical figures, although that is tempting, and say, ''Above that level your performance of this particular task is likely to be adversely affected''?

David Jamieson: Answer.

Anne McIntosh: I will not be accused of answering for the Government again. I shall leave that to the Minister. The debate comes back to how we would define being unfit for duty. While an alcohol limit can be set under the powers provided by the 1982 Act, such a limit has no practical use without the ability to test for blood alcohol levels when an offence is suspected. We welcome the fact that for the first time it will be possible to test.
 What do the Government believe to be the scale of the problem? I understand that, as of 1996, the aviation accident investigation branch investigated on average 350 accidents and serious incidents every year. At that time, the last occasion on which alcohol was reported to be a causal factor was the light aircraft incident in 1991. That resulted in the recommendation that I mentioned earlier. However, in approximately 80 per cent. of cases, the branch uses a report form completed by the pilot. The Civil Aviation Authority firmly believes that alcohol is a contributory factor in a number of aircraft accidents each year, but in the absence of testing the true scope of the problem is hard to assess. 
 At any time, between 40 and 50 professional pilots are being counselled by the CAA for alcohol-related 
 problems. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether those figures are still accurate. Approximately 10 pilots per year are added to the programme, which balances the number of people who are removed. Reports of air crew reporting for duty in an unfit state through drink or drugs are very rare. I have already mentioned the pilot who recently lost his position. I do not know how that matter came to the crew's or the passengers' attention, but he was escorted off the aircraft because everybody believed that he was in an unfit state. That case was proved, but I believe that it was a rare occurrence. 
 Even when air crew are reported it is difficult to take enforcement action under the present arrangements, because there is no power to take and test samples from suspected offenders. The CAA has, since 1996, been able to mount only one prosecution for an alcohol offence. Can the Minister update us on the figures between 1996 and 2003? 
 In the past eight years the CAA has been notified of eight cases of drug use, all involving marijuana. There were five notifications from private pilots who declared a history of marijuana use prior to receiving their licences. Of those, three currently hold medical certificates. The other three notifications involved individuals who declared a history of drug use while holding a licence. Of those, only one—again, a private pilot—now holds a valid medical certificate. 
 Air traffic controllers and to a lesser extent maintenance engineers generally work under strict supervision and the scope for serious alcohol or substance abuse to go undetected is more limited than for air crew. That sets out the background. It would be helpful to have more up-to-date figures. I have a copy of the British Airline Pilots Association technical policy manual. As I mentioned just before we rose this morning, there is some concern about the time of testing and the time that a person is deemed to be unfit for duty. That goes to the heart of how successful part 5 will be. The BALPA medical study group says that the present situation with regard to professional air crew in the UK is not indicative of any general problems with drug use. Alcohol abuse, while not unknown, is fortunately rare. 
 I am sure that BALPA would wish to raise the timing. If the timing of the testing is to be on recruitment prior to taking up a position for the first time, that will be highly appropriate. If it immediately followed or was in connection with an accident, that would also be non-controversial. One category is described as giving due cause for concern. Can the Minister set out the circumstances that give due cause for concern? It is generally regarded that the testing should be non-invasive. There should be no need for any skin penetration or removal of body parts such as hairs, nail clippings and scrapings. That must be a basic tenet of any scheme. According to the BALPA handbook, drugs are generally tested from a urine sample and alcohol by breath analysis. Those are the currently acceptable methods. 
 I repeat the request that I made in connection to parts 2 and 3. I am very taken by oral testing by swab. 
 Was that discounted and if so why? Obviously the BALPA technical policy manual is very helpful in that regard. It shows the extent to which testing already takes place. 
 I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to confirm that in all probability there will not be random testing. That is a controversial area. If an airline wished to introduce random testing it would have to negotiate that with its employees, covering every category of worker and the airports, in so far as safety-critical staff are employed at airports too. 
 I am hesitant to include in the Bill a requirement for random testing. However, as the Minister will know, one Labour Member—I believe that it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—is on the record as saying that she would like an amendment to introduce random testing for airline personnel. I imagine that such an amendment will be tabled at a subsequent stage of the Bill. How would the Government react to that? 
 BALPA insists that any testing programme should be based on a written contract between management and employee representatives. I have some sympathy with that. It should include acceptance of a drug and alcohol-free workplace, which would include restaurants and all offices, at all times. Clearly, airline pilots and crew have time to eat lunch, which we no longer have; that is a source of envy for us. The spirit and intent of the programme must be accepted from the boardroom down. 
 It is especially important that the purpose and intent of the testing should be clearly stated and that concerns should be addressed. Confidentiality is essential. I applaud British Airways for the sensitive way in which it handled an incident with a pilot, which occurred in the past month or two. Results or information must never go to outside parties such as customers or the press. Drugs to be included in the testing programme and alcohol concentration levels should be specified. For alcohol, there should be a cautionary zone in which a failure is not triggered but flying duties are not undertaken. Apparently, that is the situation in the United States of America. The Government may see fit to extend it to this country. Office and shop floor workers should be sent home. 
 Those considerations go to the heart of what I said just before we rose this morning about whether the Government will narrowly define ''unfit for duty''. Obviously, if a passenger aircraft carrying 100 passengers or more is involved, there is not just the damage that could be done to the craft and, more important, its occupants but the damage that could be done to buildings and infrastructure on take-off, landing or at any stage of the flight. Such a situation does not bear thinking about. 
 The Bill could be more explicit on how the test results, rehabilitation and right to return to work will be handled, what possible appeal procedures will apply, what the frequency of testing will be and, more especially—this is something that we will return to in more detail later—who will pay for the programme of testing and underwrite any costs of rehabilitation subject to a person testing positive or 
 costs of compensation in the case of dismissal. Presumably, that is an internal matter for the airlines. I do not believe that the Bill deals with those issues. 
 The industry is concerned that testing should not be random. It should be at specified times, such as on the cusp of taking up employment, in connection with or in the immediate aftermath of an accident, when due cause is given, or when, as the BALPA manual indicates, someone has been part of a rehabilitation programme and is coming successfully out of the programme and back into work. 
 I understand that there were some positive reactions during the consultation from most of the industry as to the categories that should be specified. It is important in clauses 90 and 91 to specify the prescribed limits, particularly in connection with actual aviation functions. I hope that at the very least we can insist that everyone who will be subject to the tests will be perceived to have a safety-critical function. For example, in its response, the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that they should apply to all unlicensed maintenance staff, that it may be appropriate to have a higher limit for cabin crews and maintenance personnel, presumably referring to the different functions that they perform, and that there should be routine testing after accidents and more emphasis on drugs abuse. In its view, random testing should remain an option. 
 I hope that, if the matter that I am about to raise is not covered under clause 89, the Minister will indicate under which clause it will be covered. How will the Bill be enforced outside the United Kingdom? I think that the UK pilot who lost his job was about to fly from Stockholm in Sweden to the UK. At the time the CAA raised concerns about the reporting of suspected offences, which I have echoed. 
 The CAA also said that private pilots, cabin crew and maintenance engineers could be subject to less stringent alcohol limits than flight crews and air traffic control operators. We can probably have this debate shortly, when we come to discuss other clauses. In the interests of simplicity and ease of administration, it is my fervent desire that we have a one-size-fits-all definition of what constitutes being unfit for duty in terms of alcohol and drugs. That would make how the Bill is to be applied much clearer.

Kelvin Hopkins: I want briefly to take issue with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about random testing. I assure Ministers that, if the Government choose to propose random testing, I will support it and I have no doubt that a number of other Labour Members will do so too. I speak from personal experience, not as a pilot, but as a passenger who once suspected that all the crew on an aircraft were drunk. Some 18 years ago, when I was flying back from Plovdiv by Balkan Air on a very old Russian aircraft, the cabin crew were openly drinking vodka in the cabin and were clearly drunk. When we arrived at Gatwick, the plane lurched vigorously up and down, which terrified all those on board. I strongly suspected that the pilot had also been taking vodka during the flight.
 I feel strongly about the issue. In particular, random testing should be applied to pilots from countries where they are perhaps less scrupulous about drinking and flying aircraft. I am sure that BALPA members are sober on all occasions and thoroughly responsible, but on that occasion, the crew from Balkan Air were certainly not and there may be other countries in which crew are less scrupulous about not drinking before they fly their aircraft. 
 I just wanted to voice that view, which is opposed to that of the hon. Lady. If the Government choose to introduce random testing, I will certainly support it.

John Randall: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Although there was no frequent-flier scheme on Aeroflot and Air Mongolia, I know exactly where he is coming from. I have only one point to make. We support the idea of alcohol and drugs being incompatible with flying, but I wonder whether the Government have done anything about pilot tiredness. Obviously, there are two pilots but, as we know from driving, tiredness is a major source of concern. The issue is probably not within the remit of the Bill, but I thought that I would take the opportunity to ask the Government about their policy.

John Spellar: Obviously, a number of Committee members have now learned the advantages of flying on British airlines. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was going to put whichever undesirable regime he was visiting at the time on the register of interests.
 A number of questions were posed about how the offences would be enforced overseas. The Air Navigation Order 2000 applies to all British registered aircraft wherever they are in the world. The current proposals will adopt the same approach. In many cases, that could involve testing a person once they have returned to the UK, but it may be possible to prove an offence, for example, of being unfit through alcohol or drugs while outside the UK by using the evidence of other crew members or passengers. On the question of tiredness, I understand that operators are required to have a flight and duty time scheme to prevent air crew from becoming fatigued. 
 On random testing, I draw the Committee's attention to the grounds in the table, which indicates that there has to be reasonable suspicion in order for a constable to take action. Oral testing by swab is not currently envisaged. However, were it to be introduced on the roads, clause 93(2) would allow it to be introduced in aviation. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York quoted some figures on the Civil Aviation Authority. I am pleased to inform her that those figures are correct. I understand that referrals to the CAA currently run at about 12 to 15 per year. I commend the clause.

Anne McIntosh: May I come to the Minister's rescue, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary clearly is not doing so? I hope that he is feeling better.
 On random testing, I wonder whether I could interpret a nod or shake of the head into the official record. I heard what the hon. Member for Luton, North said, and I do not know what the attraction is that makes both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) go to these places in the Balkans using such interesting airlines. As the Minister said, there are many attractions in flying with more regular British carriers, which would certainly tempt me. If there is to be random testing, I should prefer it to be carried out on a basis agreed sensitively between the airlines as employers and their employees in whichever category they are employed. I imagine that because of the confidential nature of testing, to which I hope the testing laws will be sensitive, that would be difficult. 
 Will the Minister give a nod or a shake as to whether we will be able to discuss the timing of the testing when we have discussed the table? 
Mr. Spellar indicated assent.

Anne McIntosh: That is marvellous. Perhaps I could hold my comments until then. I welcome the Minister's comments in response to the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that, as with drivers, we are sensitive to the fact that we do not wish pilots, air crew or anyone operating in a safety-critical way with an airline or Russian airport to be fatigued in any way. We welcome the provisions in that regard.
 I am delighted that we are making some progress toward the acceptance of oral swab taking or, as I prefer to call it—it is a lovely expression—the oral mucosal transudate. I clearly understood the Minister to say that the Government might be minded to introduce that for road transport. As this is probably my last opportunity during these proceedings and since it is unlikely to be adopted before the Bill leaves this place, I point out that the taking of evidence by oral swab could have certain advantages to commend it taken in conjunction with the remaining tests. 
 We would prefer that only those who are deemed to have safety-critical functions should be declared unfit for duty. We will consider the matter further under clause 93, as the Minister of State said. I hope that we can return to the issue of random testing elsewhere in the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Prescribed limit

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in
clause 90, page 38, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
 This is a probing amendment. For the sake of having a limit that is easy to understand and simple to administer, we would like the Minister to explain why a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer should, under 
 the provisions setting out the prescribed limit, be deemed to have a less safety-critical role than others involved. In my experience—I do not know how it relates to that of the hon. Member for Luton, North—the safety of an aircraft on take-off, flight and landing, is critical.

John Randall: One eastern European airlineI cannot remember whichhad such a bad safety record that it used to make the aircraft engineers fly on the aeroplanes that they had just serviced, which focused the mind greatly.

Anne McIntosh: That makes my point extremely well. I join the Minister in wondering why one would wish to fly with such bizarre carriers when there are very good carriers on these shores. It may be because our carriers do not always fly to a particular destination.

John Spellar: Can the hon. Lady say how her amendment and contribution answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)?

Anne McIntosh: Which question was that?

John Spellar: The question on impairment of capability.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, an aircraft maintenance engineer who is over the limit prescribed in subsection (2) will be just as impaired as the others specified. A licensed aircraft maintenance engineer's role is as safety-critical as the others, and he should be subject to the same limit. I do not know the extent to which that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister is being mischievous. My point was that any level should be not empirical but based on evidence. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree. There is no point in setting limits for the sake of it; we need to establish what blood alcohol levels would be adverse for a particular task.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. We can discuss that in subsequent clauses. I am trying to make a simple point without being distracted by the Minister. I am delighted to hear from his answer that he is recovering his voice. I cannot understand why in the view of the Minister, the Department and the Government, a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer is perceived to have a less safety-critical role and is therefore allowed to partake of more alcohol.

John Randall: I think that we are trying to elicit from the Minister why, in simple terms, an engineer can have one more glass of wine than a pilot.

Anne McIntosh: That is why I said ''safety-critical''. The engineer should be just as sober as other personnel. [Interruption.] It gets better.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying but I find it difficult to hear her because hon. Members are chattering.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Hood. The chattering classes seem to be on the move.
 As I said at the outset—there might have been chattering then and the Minister may not have picked up the point—a higher limit might be appropriate for 
 cabin crews and maintenance personnel. However, I go with the Civil Aviation Authority. If it says that there should be a higher limit than that initially envisaged by the Government, why did the Government reject that? We believe that it is just as likely that aircraft engineers could be intoxicated or have their judgment impaired because they were allowed to drink more alcohol than other personnel before they were deemed unfit for duty, and I think that that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury was trying to make. The measure is confusing and goes against the grain of the regulatory body—the CAA. The Government should set only one limit.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the issue is confusing. I suspect that the Government's argument will be that the lower limit relates to response rates. The issue is especially confusing because on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
''As fast reflexes are essential on the part of aircrews and air traffic controllers, a lower limit of 20 mg will be set for those engaged in such activities. For all other aviation workers, however, the limit will be 80 mg.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 774.]
 Who are the ''all other aviation workers'' whom he talked about? Surely we should have a definition because there is clearly a wider range than that covered in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: That is absolutely right. In response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) in the same debate, the Secretary of State said:
''The principle has long been accepted that we ought to have measures to reduce the effect of drinking on the number of accidents . . . I shall speak about marine activities first . . . Aviation activities are slightly different''.—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 773.]
 The consequences of accidents caused by people who are unfit for duty because they have taken alcohol and drugs are much graver in a big passenger airline than in a little recreational craft, and we have tried to explore that. 
 I am not talking about little general aircraft. I shall mention Bagby airport in passing because I always like to get on record the fact that it is in the Vale of York. We are immensely proud of that and we have several small two-seater passenger jets. I regret only that there is not the opportunity for the Committee to partake of a visit.

Mark Lazarowicz: For the benefit of the Committee and her constituents, is the hon. Lady in favour of expanding international facilities at the airport in her constituency?

Anne McIntosh: I regret to say that, although the airport is called Bagby international airport, there do not appear to be any international activities. Runways cross farmland and aircraft take off over the A19, with consequences for drivers. As listeners to the Radio 4 weather forecast on the ''Today'' programme will know, although it is the most beautiful part of the country to represent, we endure some of the most
 adverse weather conditions, and the Vale of York is mentioned three days out of four for that reason.
 I am delighted to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. Despite its name, Bagby international airport regrettably has no international ambitions to speak of at the moment. It would be inappropriate to comment on whether I would want such facilities for the purposes of clause 90 and my amendment, tempting as it is to go down that path. 
 Dragging myself back, kicking and screaming, the two-seater planes that operate out of a small airport are light years away from the sophisticated carriers that now exist. I have an interest in BAE Systems, as the Committee knows. I am wedded to the Airbus with its magnificent engineering and sophisticated equipment. I must also mention Boeing, which I understand will be bringing jobs to South Yorkshire in the foreseeable future. 
 An aircraft maintenance engineer presumably has to put bolts and screws in the right place to keep the plane together. If his ability to carry out that maintenance and repair were impaired in any way, making him unfit for duty, I would prefer him to be subject to the lower limit.

John Randall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will help me. Is she saying that members of the cabin crewstewards, stewardesses or trolley operativesare subject to greater restriction than the engineers, even though the engineers have a more crucial safety function?

Anne McIntosh: I was not expressing myself clearly. That was the very point that I was trying to make. Interestingly, when one reads adverts for Channel Express and easyJet cabin crew, it seems that, to be successful, one needs only to be able to swim more than 25 m in one go. I am tempted to apply, providing that age is no bar. However, I divert from the main theme before us.
 It is not only a matter of putting the screws or bolts in the right place. Computers drive aircraft such as the Airbus. It is essential that the engineers who service and maintain those computers should be subject to the lowest level of blood alcohol—they should not be allowed to drink more than pilots or air crew. If one treats everybody as being part of the same workplace, from the boardroom down, which is the commendable philosophy of the pilots, why on earth should the aircraft engineers not be considered to be part of the workplace?

John Spellar: I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady's argument; I am slightly confused partly as to whether it comes from the Conservative party. Also, I thought that she quoted with approval the response of the Civil Aviation Authority to the consultation. The suggestion of the Civil Aviation Authority was that maintenance engineers should be subject to less stringent alcohol limits than flight crews and air traffic controllers, for the perfectly sensible reason that there is no evidence that the ability of maintenance workers to carry out their duties safely is significantly impaired at blood alcohol levels below
 80 milligrammes. The higher limit is considered appropriate and proportionate because speed of reaction is not as critical to the performance of duties as it is for air crew or air traffic controllers. The key requirement is to frame restrictions that make an appropriate and proportionate response.
 I accept that the position is more difficult when it comes to cabin crew, so we weighed the arguments more carefully. In an emergency on board an aircraft, cabin crew perform an important safety role, so it was felt that they should be subject to the same limits as their flight deck colleagues. We believe that the procedures are proportionate and right for the aviation industry in order to maximise safety with the minimum of inconvenience for the individuals concerned.

Anne McIntosh: We will have to beg to differ. I regard not speed but safety as the critical factor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury eloquently explained, if the ability of an aircraft engineer were impaired through drinking to the higher limit, that would, in itself, be sufficient to make him unfit for duty.

John Spellar: Can the hon. Lady define which ability of individuals is so impaired that it impacts on the performance of their proper role? With driving, limits apply because we know from various investigations that alcohol significantly impairs the speed of response to events; that is precisely why the limits apply to drivers of motor vehicles. The analogy transfers across to jobs where rapid response is an important element, differentiating such jobs from others.

Anne McIntosh: That is where we differ. The speed of response is not the critical factor for me. All these jobs have significant safety implications. If an accident were caused because an aircraft engineer put a bolt in the wrong place or failed correctly to set the computer that drives the plane, it would be a critical part of what happened.

Don Foster: Is the hon. Lady awarethis should help her argumentthat research suggests that alcohol not only impairs the speed of reaction in an emergency on board an aircraft, but reduces the ability to perform two or more tasks at the same time and to see distant objects? Blurred and double vision can occur, and the ability to see what is happening peripherally is weakened. Alcohol can also create a sense of over-confidence, which results in people taking greater risks. All those factors will affect the people to whom the hon. Lady refers.

Anne McIntosh: That is precisely my point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury would agree that judgment is as important as reacting on time. The different people are performing different functions. Some are flying a plane, making speed important, but the others are servicing the plane to ensure that it takes off, flies and lands in one piece. Is it beyond the Minister's wit to understand that? Manuals such as the BALPA technical handbook clearly say that all personnel[Interruption.] Obviously, this is not viewed as seriously as it should be by[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. I have already asked the Committee to listen to the hon. Member who is
 speaking. I hope that all Members will observe the proper rules of procedure and give the hon. Lady the opportunity to address the Committee. We may have a Division, so it is important to know what we are voting for.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Hood. I do not want to be accused of repetition if the Minister does not hear what I am saying.
 In the Government's explanatory notes, to which the Government are wedded, we are told that the offence will be 
''of being 'over the limit' ''.
 We believe that the limit should be the same for all safety-critical roles. We part company in saying that that person should be deemed to have a safety-critical role, even if their reaction times are not the most decisive factor, but if their work goes to the heart of whether a plane can take off, fly and land in one piece. It would have been preferable and much easier to implement the provision had the same categories of prescribed limit applied in each case.

Jimmy Hood: I assume that the hon. Lady will not put her amendment to the vote.

Anne McIntosh: Bearing it in mind that the Minister has given us certain assurances, we will not press the matter to a Division, although we may return to it at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the opportunity[Interruption.] I will not put that on record, Mr. Hood. One would wish to record that the Chairman, as ever, wants the common courtesies of the House and mankind generally to be respected.
 Clause 90(1) establishes the offence of being over the limit while carrying out or preparing to carry out specified aviation-related functions. We tabled an amendment to the clause, but it would be helpful to have some further clarification. Subsection (4) says that the Secretary of State will have the discretionary power to make regulations. Are they Henry VIII regulations, and will they be subject to affirmative or negative procedure? Before we reach the relevant clause, it would be helpful to know which procedure will be followed. 
 As we mentioned on clause 89, which was about being unfit for duty, it is important to note that an offence is committed if 
''he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit''.
 I assume that that time is when someone presents themselves for duty. Will the Minister clarify exactly what that subsection means? The offence also applies if it is deemed to be 
''an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function''.
 I assume that the Minister will confirm that those functions are set out exclusively in clause 91. However, does that mean that the Government have rejected the 
 other functions that we may consider as falling within the remit of clause 90?

John Spellar: As the hon. Lady rightly said, the clause makes it an offence for a person to perform an aviation function or ancillary activity while over the specified limit. It sets the maximum level of alcohol permitted in an individual's body for the carrying out of the functions of the crew of an aircraft or an air traffic control officer, and it addresses the additional question, which we discussed earlier, of a higher limit for aircraft maintenance engineers.
 The hon. Lady asked whether the power to change the limits by secondary legislation was subject to affirmative or negative procedure, and I can confirm that any changes will be by affirmative resolution. I commend the clause, which suitably clarifies matters for those who work in the industry.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that clarification. If we have to have new regulations at the Secretary of State's discretion, we will prefer them to be passed by affirmative resolution. My only concern is that the Minister did not say whether this is a comprehensive and exclusive list of functions, but it is more appropriate to consider that later.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 - Aviation functions

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
clause 91, page 39, line 7, leave out 
 'in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking' 
 and insert— 
 'in accordance with the terms of an employment contract or other obligation'.
 I assume that the Government intend the employers to police the functions, and that the airline or airport employer is likely to provide proof of an employment contract and line of control and command. That follows on from the fact that a new offence is introduced. The amendment seeks to be more specific about the terms of an employment or undertaking, and relates to my remarks on clause 90 about whether the list was prescribed, or whether the Under-Secretary may want to consider other categories later.

John Randall: I support my hon. Friend, but I am not entirely sure whether our amendment replaces subsection (5), as subsection (6) is unnecessarily verbose and legalistic. Subsection (5) states:
''A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.''
 If the Under-Secretary is not minded to accept the amendment—call me psychic, but I have a feeling that he will not be—perhaps he will explain what the subsection means in simple language.

Don Foster: May I suggest a form of words that seems to work? If the hon. Gentleman says, ''Oh, all
 right then,'' the Under-Secretary seems to be inclined to accept them.

John Randall: I am sure that that only works once in a while, which has probably already happened in the Committee.

David Jamieson: I believe that the amendment seeks clarification of what is intended in subsection (5). This is the first time that my explanation will be marginally longer than the speech made by the hon. Member for Vale of York in moving an amendment.
 We seek to deter not only personnel from performing aviation functions while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but those personnel holding themselves ready to carry out those functions at short notice. They may hold themselves ready either under their terms of employment or under the terms of an undertaking. It may be that the word ''undertaking'' has been read by itself, when the intention is that is should be linked to the phrase ''the terms of'', so that we read 
''in accordance with the terms of an . . . undertaking.''
 The clause is intended to cover not only employees such as pilots, but recreational aviators such as members of a flying club. In the former case, we are all aware of the common practice of placing personnel on stand-by duty to cover for last-minute staff absences. Usually, staff will receive remuneration for the inconvenience of such a duty, but in return they are expected to be fit to carry out those functions that they are called upon to perform. They are employed on those terms—hence the phrase 
''the terms of an employment''
 in the clause. However, a person should not be able to endanger the travelling public by reporting for duty while under the influence of drink or drugs, using the excuse that they did not know whether they would be flying that day. 
 Stand-by duty is usually associated with an individual's terms of employment, but that is not always the case. Clause 91(5), therefore, does not restrict itself to employment contracts, but includes people—I hope that the hon. Lady is listening—who undertake to be on stand-by on any other basis. A recreational aviator, for example, may have given an undertaking to abide by the rules of the flying club. Those rules might provide that pilots' use of an aircraft on a particular day will be subject to the determination of the club on that day and that timings may be variable. In such circumstances the pilot should not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the time at which he or she is prepared to fly. 
 The amendment would make two changes. The first would change 
''the terms of an employment''
 to 
''the terms of an employment contract.''
 That would make little difference to the clause. However, the second change, which would replace ''or undertaking'' with ''or other obligation'' is 
 ambiguous, and potentially changes the sense of the clause. It could limit the obligations to those related to employment. Moreover, some of the terms of an undertaking that we want to cover in the clause may be less than an obligation. In the earlier recreational example, the pilot is not ''obliged'' to fly at the time offered by club, although he or she may have undertaken only to fly at that time, if at all. 
 I hope that my explanation is crystal clear, and that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

John Randall: Before I give the Under-Secretary the accord of being crystal clear, I would like clarification of a few further points.
 I presume that stand-by crew and cabin staff would stand by at the airport. However, I wonder what would happen if someone were telephoned at home and asked, ''Look, John, we are a bit short on the 9.30 flight going to Khabarovsk. Any chance of you reporting for duty?'' and John replied, ''I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of a party over here.'' Would he be committing an offence? Presumably he would not, because at that stage he would be saying that he was unfit for duty. If someone were at home and unfit for duty, what would their contractual obligations be if they were eligible for stand-by? Do they, for example, have to be within the confines of an airport?

David Jamieson: The person's contract would almost certainly set out what stand-by meant. It would probably mean prepared and ready to go on duty, so they would be in a place or locating themselves at a place where they could undertake that duty. If so, they would fall under the remit of the Bill. Someone who was not on stand-by and was having a party at their house could probably argue that they were not obliged by their contract to be on stand-by, and could say to their employer, ''I don't want to come in today. I don't want to undertake this particular duty.''

John Randall: May I explore that matter a little further with regard to air crews abroad? Stand-by crews abroad might be at a hotel, for example. When asked to be on stand-by, if they say that they are unfit, that they have had a drink or, more likely, that they have taken cough medicine that will make them feel drowsy and unfit for duty, there may be a contractual problem that their employers may want to take up, but would an offence have been committed under the clause?

Jimmy Hood: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to be helpful. His point would be well made in the clause stand part debate, but not in discussions on the amendment. I understood that the Minister had invited the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Anne McIntosh: There is some confusion because the Library note refers to clause 91(2), (3) and (4), not to subsection (5) that carries the offence of being over the limit or unfit to a category that is specific to aviation crews on stand-by. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his full reply to the probing amendment, but it is generally believed that the clause is unclear and that the industry's view is that our amendment is clearer. He referred to a person who is understood to be on stand-by, because he has given an
 undertaking. I am still not clear about whether that is because it is within the terms of his employment or because he has been given an undertaking on the one occasion that he will be on stand-by.

David Jamieson: Perhaps the hon. Lady was preparing for the next clause and missed my point. I referred to a person being on stand-by along the terms of his employment, but I said that there could be other categories of people, such as those in recreational jobs, who had given an undertaking to take part in a flight. The two matters would be different. I hope that I have clarified the matter.

Anne McIntosh: I am not sure that the Minister has clarified the matter. It is probably better that we withdraw the amendment now, but we shall return to it. If we are confused about the meaning of an undertaking, the industry is confused. Such a problem will lead to curious decisions being made.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has already made certain points about the clause. As for clause 90, I wish to place on record our reluctance to allow the Secretary of State to have more discretionary powers than he may be entitled to have. If he is to be granted special powers under the Bill, can we receive confirmation that they, too, will be arranged by an affirmative resolution of the House? That would be welcome.
 We shall seek further guidance about what constitutes being on duty and what constitutes being on stand-by. There seems to be agreement between ourselves and the industry, if not with the Government, that that is not immediately clear from the Bill. I refer to the listing of functions. Given my knowledge of the industry, one or two functions are not listed that could be deemed to be safety critical. Are the Government minded to add to the list or is it to be inconclusive as set out in the Bill? 
 It is interesting to note that a rugby team that came over recently was deemed to be unfit to play because more than half of the team had gone down with flu. That is a little like the Committee—more than half of this team seems to have gone down with the lurgy during our proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggested that if a member of flight personnel—a navigator or a flight deck attendant—had the misfortune to take some rather strong cough mixture for such a lurgy or flu, that could tip them over the prescribed limit for the purposes of clause 90. 
 Clearly, given which people are deemed to satisfy the criteria of aviation functions, it is important that different possibilities are allowed for, rather than one course being enshrined in the legislation. Some scope could be left to the managers, employee representatives and others who administer internal organisations. Each airline and each airport wants to run a safe operation. I cannot believe that they would wish to employ anybody who might be in breach of the Bill. 
 I was slightly surprised at the Minister of State's response to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on fatigue. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that a European flight time proposal is causing great concern in the industry, especially to pilots. The industry believes that that could lead to a regulation that is even more stringent than that which is before us here and perhaps even more stringent than the drink-driving provisions. We shall, no doubt, return to that. 
 We seek guidance on whether there are omissions here and whether the Government have considered including them. Do they intend to include them now in the aviation functions in subsection (1), or will they allow each airline and airport operating company some leeway to ensure that all those deemed to have a relevant aviation function will be included in the Bill's provisions?

John Randall: I shall try not to repeat my earlier point. I am grateful for your help on that, Mr. Hood. Very briefly, if someone reports themselves as unfit, will they still be committing an offence? That was the gist of my remark.
 I should like clarification on what constitutes ''during flight''. Presumably that does not mean only when an aircraft is up in the air? From what point does it apply? I know that the pilot is not actually given a set of keys to the aeroplane, but from what point is he, or any person under subsection (1), deemed to be actually in flight? I imagine that that is at some point in the airport or the terminal. I was going to mention that if someone happens to be asleep in their car, with the keys in their pocket, they could be deemed to be in control of the vehicle. I think that that is probably not applicable, but it might apply in the case of small light aircraft. 
 I have another concern, although perhaps the Minister will tell me that it does not need to be included. There are increasing calls to have on board security personnel—I think that they are being called sky marshals, in the dramatic terms that the papers like to use. That is happening on quite a lot of airlines. The idea that an armed person who has just overdosed on Benylin or worse still just found the miniatures cabinet is unnerving. I wonder whether such people are encompassed by the provisions or whether they would be covered by the Secretary of State's powers.

David Jamieson: The clause defines those safety-critical aviation activities that will become subject to the offences under this part of the Bill. The defined functions mirror those set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000 as being carried out by the flight deck crew, air traffic controllers or licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.
 Those personnel, together with the cabin crew, are already prohibited from carrying out their aviation functions while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The carrying out of those functions while impaired by intoxicants endangers both the individual and others, including passengers. It is entirely right that such personnel should be subject to a maximum alcohol limit, not only while carrying out those functions but while preparing to carry them out. 
 It is equally important that personnel on stand-by duty holding themselves ready to perform an aviation function at short notice should be included in the legislation. It should be no excuse for a person endangering the public to argue that they were uncertain whether they would be flying that day. Stand-by duty is usually associated with an individual's contracted conditions of employment, but that is not necessarily always the case. The clause is not therefore restricted solely to arrangements made under an employment contract, but includes any person who is available to perform an aviation function. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked about people who report that they are unfit for duty. If a person reported that they were unfit for duty, they would absolve themselves from their contractual arrangement, which they must have made. That is like phoning in to say that one is unfit and cannot undertake one's work because, like most members of the Committee, one has a cold. The circumstances of each case would have to be looked at. The hon. Gentleman alluded to a group of people in a hotel on stand-by in a foreign place. They might well commit an offence if they were contracted and had not absolved themselves of the contract.

John Randall: Let me set out the sort of example that I had in mind. The stand-by crew have seen a crew going off in a bus. Something happens on the bus, but in the meantime the crew have had a glass of Scotch. When the phone call comes saying that the stand-by crew have to go the airport, they state that they cannot do it. The airline, which could take disciplinary action against which none of us would argue, would be rightly annoyed that the stand-by crew had broken its contract. I am interested to know whether a crew that said that it did not consider itself fit for duty would be deemed to have committed an offence.

David Jamieson: That would depend on what was in the contract. If the contract said, ''When you see the bus moving off and the crew going along the road, you can consider yourself no longer on stand-by'' an offence would not be committed. However, the contract of employment would not say that. I should have thought that if someone were on stand-by for a four-hour period, they could not absolve themselves of their responsibilities on the basis of having seen the crew move off. When a person is not on stand-by would depend on their contract.
 The hon. Gentleman asked about when an aircraft is in flight. I refer him to the Air Navigation Order 2000, a document with which I am sure that he is familiar. It states that 
''An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.''
 I hope that that is clear enough for him.

John Randall: The Under-Secretary is very patient with me; I am but a simple man from Uxbridge. The definition that he gave implies that the clause applies only when the aircraft starts moving. People might be
 at the airport about to go through with all their gear on when someone notices that one of them is suffering. Under clause 91, would that count as ''during flight''?

David Jamieson: I have given the hon. Gentleman the definition of clause 91(1)(a). I hope that it is helpful to him.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about affirmative revolutions.

Anne McIntosh: Revolutions?

David Jamieson: Indeed, we have had enough of those. If she reads on a little in the Bill, she will see that clause 96 sets out that any regulations under part 5 will be subject to affirmative resolution, which will give the hon. Lady and the rest of the Opposition opportunity to discuss them.
 In his second point, the hon. Member for Uxbridge asked about the meaning of ''during flight''. The crew would be covered under clause 91(6) if the aircraft were not in flight. I hope that that answers his point.

John Randall: I was waiting for an answer to my question about sky marshals.

David Jamieson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can repeat his question, as I did not hear what he said on the matter.

John Randall: I do not want to be accused of repetition.

Jimmy Hood: I am on the verge of doing so.

John Randall: Under the scope of 91(1), are sky marshalssecurity personnelcovered?

David Jamieson: No. I am advised that they will not be covered.

John Randall: Does the Minister think that they should be?

David Jamieson: No. Sky marshals are a new concept, which is why the Bill contains clauses to allow the Secretary of State to take action later should she or he think it appropriate. There is the facility to return to examine issues against the background of the changing security and safety situation.

Richard Bacon: May I say something?

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman may speak if he has a new point.

Richard Bacon: I assure you, Mr. Hood, that I have a new point. I woke upnot that I was asleep; I have been particularly attentive as the Government Whip will confirmwhen I heard reference to the Air Navigation Order 2000, which as the Under Secretary indicates is a matter of great interest. An order will be made under clause 91. Can the Minister confirm whether under clause 91(1)(g) the licence that is issued to NATS to provide air traffic control services in the United Kingdom is permanent or temporarythat is, time-limited?

David Jamieson: I am sure that inspiration will come to me eventually that will provide a reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Anne McIntosh: It would be timely to remind the Committee that we were promised several written
 notes during last week's proceedings on points that could not be answered in Committee on part 3. Will the Minister give us those answers by lunchtime tomorrow? That will be almost a week since we asked for them. I could laboriously go through each question, some of which relate to the police clauses. My understanding was that we were promised a written answer from the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State.
 We have established that some categories have not been included, and I can quite understand why the Government might not want to list sky marshals. We have given the matter some thought. We hope that the sky marshal, who may well be armed on some flights, particularly El Al flights, will be subject to the same prescriptive limits. We will want to return to the point later. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Penalty

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in
clause 92, page 39, line 25, leave out from 'conviction' to end of line 26 and insert- 
 '(i) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or 
 (ii) to have his licence suspended and be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation.'.
 I suspect, as I look elsewhere in the Room, that our consideration of this important amendment may be interrupted. It brings us back into the territory of ''Oh, go on then''. At least I hope it does. 
 It is important for us to be aware that in addition to the penalties that would be meted out to people found guilty of offences under this part of the Bill, other penalties might be imposed by their employers. Under their terms of employment, action over and above anything that is proposed here might be taken against an individual found guilty of an offence under this part of the Bill. The awarding of licences to pilots is an additional issue. Clearly the Civil Aviation Authority has its own regulations on the awarding or removal of licences, which may impinge upon offences created under this part of the Bill. 
 I am also aware that when we debate penalties or enforcement of this part of the Bill we have relatively little evidence to go on. Until the Bill is enacted we have no prescribed limits or a testing regime. There is no history on which to judge the appropriateness of penalties. However, because the Bill draws on parallels with drink-driving offences, we have a body of evidence on which we can draw. The amendment seeks to add an additional and alternative form of enforcement, which provides for the individual's licence to be suspended and for that person to be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation.

John Randall: Presumably, if the Bill is in line with the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person would have to get his licence back again.

Don Foster: I was going to come to that point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That occurs in some countries where similar measures already exist. Clearly, the person would have to demonstrate that he met the various requirements to have the licence returned. The licence is not simply stopped; he must take positive action to get the licence back.
 When we discussed proposals in this area with various bodies, it was interesting to note that Alcohol Concern accepts entirely, as we do, that the legislation in part 3 must be backed up by a remedy in law. However, it questioned whether imprisonment for what can be recognised as a society illness was counter-productive. There is quite an important debate to have on that. Alcohol Concern suggests that anyone so identified should have their licence medically suspended and should be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation, as the amendment proposes. That organisation goes on to say that the aim of the rehabilitation should be the return of the licence and job, and allowing the recovered individual to return substance-free.

David Cairns: Do I take it, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has said about Alcohol Concern and the question of the appropriateness of imprisoning people, that the amendment would not remove the Government sanction of imprisonment?

Don Foster: No, that is right. That is why I said that Alcohol Concern too acknowledged the need for the back-up of a remedy in law. The hon. Gentleman is right: in some circumstances, a period of imprisonment may be deemed the right course of action. In others, a fine might be deemed the right course of action, in addition to any other action that the person's employer might take.
 The British Air Line Pilots Association it is of a similar view that non-malicious alcohol or drug abuse is a disease, not a crime, and that we need to amend the Bill to allow the possibility of licence suspension and rehabilitation, rather than addressing the issue inappropriately through imprisonment. Again, however, I am sure that that body would accept the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) that imprisonment would be appropriate in some cases. That said, far too often, as the evidence from other countries increasingly suggests, we rely on punishment rather than on the other side of the coin, which is rehabilitation. 
 With all that in mind, I want to draw attention to some detailed research on drink-driving. As I said, there are parallels that we can bear in mind when we consider the impact of this part of the Bill. The evidence is building up that a very large proportion of people found guilty of drink-driving offences have an alcohol problem, whether or not we want to call them alcoholics. The same is true in respect of drugs. 
 Back in 1993, the previous Government recognised the value of at least considering rehabilitation, and courses were established to provide rehabilitation opportunities for people convicted of drink-driving. Much more recently, the present Government, having evaluated those trials, concluded that they had had a 
 high degree of success and had reduced the likelihood of reoffending. The Government have therefore expanded the number of such places. Although they have not placed that in the Bill, they certainly recognise the importance of providing opportunities for rehabilitation. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to give us the opportunity to hear the Government's thinking on rehabilitation as an additional weapon that can be used in respect of enforcement of part 3. It also gives us an opportunity to seek to persuade the Government, if they are not yet minded to develop in the area of aviation that which they have already developed in relation to motor vehicle driving, that they should do so.

Anne McIntosh: I wanted to quiz the Minister. My understanding is that rehabilitation programmes already exist, so we do not need the amendment. I think that it is understood that drug rehabilitation in most circumstances will be achieved by a professionally recognised drug treatment agency meeting the standards of the Civil Aviation Authority medical branch, that recommendations will be taken into account, and that treatment following a positive alcohol test should be graded in accordance with any underlying problem, but treatment of a long-term persistent drinker should be viewed in a different light from that on someone who has been foolhardy on an isolated occasion.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the briefing note that most of us have seen. Does she accept that in the particular case that she is talking about the practice is voluntary and there is no requirement on the individual to undergo rehabilitation? Under the amendment, we are discussing not the merits of rehabilitation, which I hope are well accepted by all Committee members, but a possible weapon in the armoury of enforcement when there would be a requirement on the individual to undergo rehabilitation.

Anne McIntosh: My point was precisely that. I am reading not from a briefing note, but from BALPA's technical policy manual, which I presume the hon. Gentleman has also studied.
 I seek clarification from the Minister. The Bill creates a new offence, and I hope that we can discuss the penalties in a brief clause stand part debate, if any of us are able to talk through the lurgy by then. My understanding is that the role of the medical review officer is paramount and that that is already the case, but perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm that.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thought that I should say a few words because, for some four years, I was chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. People with alcohol problems are good at disguising them and often, if they are not caught by random testing, they can avoid being discovered for many years and that is very serious if the people concerned are airline pilots, engine drivers, long-distance lorry
 drivers and so on. That is one reason why random testing is important to identify such people, and to persuade them to face up to their problem and to go into rehabilitation so that they can not only overcome their alcohol problem but save their jobs and livelihoods and drive, fly and steer boats safely.
 I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that the Government want to ensure that alcohol problems are treated as a disease and not a deliberate criminal act. Treatment is often more appropriate than imprisonment.

David Jamieson: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said, which reflects, to some extent, the comments of the hon. Member for Bath, who said that alcoholism is a disease, not a crime. That is true of a pilot or the driver of a car if they are abusing alcohol in their own time and have no intention of flying an aircraft or driving a car, but if they attempt to do that, their alcoholism, rightly, becomes a crime. In the other circumstance, when it could be seen to be a disease, it should be treated as such, but we have a duty to protect the safety of people whose lives could be lost in large numbers because someone who is under the influence of alcohol attempts to fly an aircraft.

John Randall: I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary. The other point, with which I hope he will agree, is that we are discussing offences that may be caused not by alcoholism but by people who have simply had a couple of pints of beer. They would be irresponsible and, therefore, committing a crime, but they would not necessarily be suffering a disease.

David Jamieson: There are gradations. People may be alcoholic, or they may simply have had too many drinks on a rare occasion and made themselves unfit to fly an aircraft. The law would apply equally in both circumstances if they attempted to fly an aircraft or to be part of the cabin crew.

David Cairns: The hon. Member for Bath can correct me if I am misreading the amendment, but would its effect not be that only those whose licences have been suspended would receive the course of treatment and rehabilitation? Those who have been fined or sent to prison will not receive that, because there is an ''or'' in the amendment rather than an ''and.'' If we are going to treat people with this illness, we should treat not only the people whose licences are suspended, but those who are sent to prison or fined. Is that not a flaw in the argument and in the wording of the amendment?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a sound point, and I wish to reinforce it, as I am sorry to say that I am opposed to the amendment.
 The amendment provides for the suspension of an offender's licence and requires him or her to undertake treatment or rehabilitation on conviction. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment: its intention is good, but it would have only limited application. It does not extend the power to suspend a licence to convictions on indictment. In addition, the 
 courts would not have jurisdiction to suspend a licence issued outside the United Kingdom—which is probably of relevance to the example of the Balkan airlines, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North raised a long time ago. Aviation is an international industry. Many pilots flying in UK airspace hold licences issued by overseas aviation authorities. Cabin crew would be unaffected because they are not required to hold a licence to perform their duties. 
 On the principle behind the amendment, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath agrees that there are many issues of fitness with regard to an individual continuing to hold an aviation-related licence, and that the specialised Civil Aviation Authority is much better able to address them than a court. It already has procedures in place to deal with reported alcohol and drug misuse among personnel who require a medical certificate to validate their aviation licences: those personnel are pilots, flight navigators, flight engineers and air traffic control officers. Once the results of a failed test have been confirmed, the CAA will, on medical grounds, temporarily suspend the individual's medical certificate. The aim of this review is to determine whether the incident was the result of a long-term problem or—as the hon. Member for Uxbridge said—an isolated lapse. Once the assessment has been carried out, a decision can be taken as to the most appropriate course of action, which may include an agreed recovery or treatment programme. 
 We consider the use of criminal sanctions under this part of the Bill to be wholly appropriate. As I said in my initial remarks, railway workers, professional drivers and—under part 4 of this Bill—mariners, are or will be subject to such sanctions. I cannot see any compelling reason to treat those in the aviation sector any differently. Representations have been made suggesting that peer intervention would be a more appropriate way of dealing with alcohol and drug misuse in the aviation community, and I take on board the points of the hon. Member for Bath about rehabilitation, but the CAA already operates a support service along the lines of the peer intervention programme that has been suggested. Such a system complements, rather than imposes an alternative to, this legislation.

Anne McIntosh: Would the Minister elaborate on what is a peer intervention system?

David Jamieson: Peer intervention is an intervention by one's peers: assessments are conducted by people who are on the same level of competence
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

David Jamieson: May I say how unusually pleased we are to see you back in Committee this afternoon, Mr. Hood. Random testing for tea drinking might be appropriate. [Interruption.] It is also lovely to see the hon. Member for Vale of York here.
 The hon. Lady asked me about peer intervention. The United States human intervention and motivation system describes such intervention as a pilot confronted by colleagues, managers and family members and encouraged to admit his or her problem. The individual surrenders his or her licence and enters a recovery programme. I hope that that helps the hon. Lady. 
 This is not a witch hunt, but the travelling public must ultimately be protected from those individuals who can buy alcohol or drugs and who are responsible for flying aircraft. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw his amendment in view of its limited application and the fact that the procedure is already in place to meet its aims.

Don Foster: I, too, am delighted to see you back in Committee, Mr. Hood.
 I am grateful for the Minister's response. Nevertheless, he was not especially helpful on a couple of points. For example, he said that it was inappropriate for the courts to determine whether someone should be entitled to a licence. The exact parallel occurs in relation to driving where the courts do have the power to take licences from people. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other bodies are responsible for awarding licences, but the courts can remove them. It does not strike me as illogical for the courts to have the opportunity to remove a pilot's licence in certain circumstances. 
 The Minister also said that the difficulty with the amendment was that it could not apply to those people who were given licences by other awarding bodies outside the United Kingdom, and that clearly it would not apply to those people who did not hold licences, such as cabin stewards. He is right. However, I must say to the hon. Member for Luton, North that the amendment adds an extra piece to the armoury of the courts in dealing with this issue. The Minister rightly said that the rehabilitation work continues, which I acknowledged from the beginning. However, the difference is whether someone who is convicted is obliged to undertake rehabilitation.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman draws a parallel between the provisions in the clause and those that relate to the road. In the case of a road offence, there is no equivalent of the Civil Aviation Authority. I dare say that it is entirely possible for courts to ban someone from driving in a motor vehicle for a fixed period of time, but the CAA may hold back part of the medical certificate for longer, until it thinks that the person is medically fit to undertake their duties.

Don Foster: The Minister is right. Of course procedures are in place. I am suggesting that the court's armoury for dealing with these matters should include this provision as well. He and I are not in significant disagreement about it. However, I hope he will bear it in mind, when we consider the issue at a later stage, that all the research shows that a high percentage of those convicted of drink-driving offences, and even of those below the drink-driving level, have serious alcohol problems. We are not dealing here with the many people who have a couple of pints once in a blue moon, as he puts it. The
 evidence shows that a high proportion of those who are caught and convicted for drink-driving offences have alcohol or drug-related problems.

David Cairns: I have some sympathy with the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but if that is what the research shows, why would his amendment limit the requirement
''to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation''
 to those whose licences have been withdrawn and not extend it to those who have been fined? Presumably, those who have been fined may have committed a more serious offence and may be in greater need of such treatment. The hon. Gentleman seems to reserve the requirement for the lesser categories, not the more important ones.

Don Foster: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Were he to work with me at a later stage in our proceedings to table a slightly more all-encompassing amendment, we might persuade the Minister to support it.
 The issue arises as to how severe a penalty it is to be forced to undertake such a course of treatment, and probably have to pay for it. Certainly in Sweden, which already has similar legislation, it is the one penalty that most people do not want. It is considered a severe penalty because of the financial implications and the length of time that one is without a licence. That is in respect of drink-driving. As the Minister rightly said, the circumstances are different in the aviation industry, but there are some parallels. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde might, therefore, rethink his argument, which seems to be that the removal of a licence and the requirement to undergo a course of treatment is the lesser of the two parts of clause 92.

Andrew Murrison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that medical intervention of the sort he is describing should be used in a punitive way. If he is, I suggest that he pick up one of the excellent little books that are available in the exhibition area. I have just been scanning through it, and it gives a good résumé of the role of medical practitioners in this area. It might help the hon. Gentleman better to understand their role in ensuring aviation safety.

Don Foster: Without having had an opportunity yet to look at what I am sure, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an excellent booklet, I cannot comment immediately. When I have had a chance to look at it, perhaps I may get back to him. He will be aware that, as the Minister has told us, general practitioners and other medical experts already do such work in relation to airline pilots, and certainly did so in respect of drink-drivers in the various trials initiated by the Conservative Government in 1993. If the hon. Gentleman is critical of what that Government did, he is entitled to that view; he can argue that he was not a member of the Government at the time. However, again there is not as much disagreement between us as he suggests.
 Keen as I always am that we should make progress on this important Bill and given the discussion that we 
 have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: As you will be aware, Mr. Hood, on the amendment paper there is an amendment in my name, which quite rightly you have chosen not to select[Interruption.] I have jumped ahead of myself. I apologise to you, Mr. Hood, and to the Committee.

Jimmy Hood: Apology accepted.

Anne McIntosh: I was wondering what was going on there, Mr. Hood, but I was prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. That was certainly much kinder than what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said to me about me.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady remind the Committee what her hon. Friend said about her?

Anne McIntosh: No, I would not like to place it on the record. It is offensive to both the hon. Member for Uxbridge and myself, and I am sure that he would not want it to be repeated.
 I was very taken—or not—by what the Under-Secretary said in response to the hon. Member for Bath. The Under-Secretary wondered whether criminal sanctions were appropriate. Surely he would agree that that debate has been and gone. The penalties set out in clause 92 are fixed at the same level as those currently applying to air crew and air traffic controllers under article 122 of the Air Navigation Order 2000. I am not questioning the accuracy of the explanatory notes; I would not like to make such a serious allegation. The clause will bring the penalty for licensed maintenance engineers under the influence of alcohol or drugs into line with those other aviation staff. 
 Since the Minister of State did not seem to think that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers have anything like the same critical safety function to perform, will the Under-Secretary explain why they would be covered by the imposition of a criminal sanction in clause 92? Playing devil's advocate—a role that seems to fall naturally to me during our proceedings—it seems that the Government are saying that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers do not have as critical a safety function as a pilot, navigator, flight engineer or flight attendant. However, they are subject to the same criminal sanction. As the Germans say, that is inconsequent, and I am sure that we would not want to include any illogical conclusions in clause 92.

David Jamieson: The clause sets out the penalty for those people committing an offence under clauses 89 or 90. The penalty for the crew of an aircraft or an air traffic controller under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work will remain the same as currently exists under the Air Navigation Order 2000, as mentioned by the hon. Lady. The clause will bring penalties for licensed aircraft maintenance engineers into line with those for other aviation colleagues.
 The hon. Lady asks why that should be applicable to engineers in the same way. I would reply that it is probably for the same reasons that such laws apply to persons driving a car. We are not saying that the provisions should not apply to engineers. Someone over the alcohol limit presents a risk. The Minister of State said earlier that those in jobs where the speed of reaction is important are subject to different levels. Of course, the level of fine a person receives if convicted under the Bill would depend on the courts. They would have to judge the severity of the crime and thereby impose an appropriate fine on the person. I hope that I have helped the Committee and that we can agree to the clause.

Anne McIntosh: I want to leave the Under-Secretary with a thought. It would be difficult to prove that a licensed maintenance engineer was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that that led to an accident, which is presumably the basis on which he will be tested. However, if I have understood the Under-Secretary correctly, clause 92(a) creates a new offence to extend the penalty to licensed maintenance engineers for causing an accident. That will be difficult to prove, and I am unsure about threatening a criminal conviction to someone whom the Government regard for other purposes as having a less safety-critical role. I argued earlier that such people should have a recognised safety-critical role, but my concern is about trying to impose a criminal penalty on someone when it will be too late to check whether they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they performed the duty that led to an accident.

David Jamieson: For clarity, I should add that such a person would be tested on the grounds of reasonable suspicion, not on the basis that there had been an accident.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 - Specimens, &c. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I shall start where I left off. I apologise to you, Mr. Hood, for earlier confusion. I thought that we were making even more rapid progress than we appear to be.
 I tabled amendment No. 90 clause 93, but you have not called it because of the rare typographical error in it. That does not matter because the clause stand part debate provides an opportunity to raise the same issue. 
 The aim of clause 93 is to mirror various sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 6 of that Act gives a police constable the power to breathalyse when he has reasonable cause to suspect that a person has been driving under the influence of alcohol or has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion, a person has been driving and remains under the influence of alcohol, or a person has been driving and has committed a traffic offence. However, section 
 6(2) gives the constable a power to breathalyse the driver of a vehicle after an accident, 
''owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place''.
 You will recall, Mr. Hood, that when we discussed an earlier clause on shipping, there was a degree of merriment about a reference to an accident occurring 
''owing to the presence of a ship in a public place''.
 We were assured that that phrase was appropriate. My amendment, had it been selected, would have given the Minister an opportunity to say why clause 93 does not have a parallel reference to accidents having been caused by an aeroplane or aircraft ''in a public place''. That was clearly important in relation to ships and motor vehicles, so one would assume that it would be important to aircraft. The point is serious, because we are debating the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an officer to carry out a breath test to check whether someone was guilty of an offence under this part of the Bill. 
 Presumably if the phrase 
''owing to the presence of an aircraft in a public place''
 is not included, the police might not be able to breathalyse a private pilot who crash-landed in a field, and nor could they breathalyse after an air-side incident involving, for example, a wing clipped a plane was while approaching the aircraft terminal. Clearly those powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances, but presumably they would be used in even fewer circumstances in relation to a ship being in a public place. No doubt the Minister has a very good reason why we have that provision for cars and ships but not for aircraft. I hope that he is about to tell us.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the debate. In his concluding remarks on clause 92, the Under-Secretary said that an offence would be deemed to have been committed not at the time of the accident, but at the time the person was deemed unfit for duty.

David Jamieson: On reasonable suspicion.

Anne McIntosh: There we have it. As both Ministers have said, that applies where there is a cause to suspect. The hon. Member for Luton, North is very taken by random testing. Our debate should be about when the testing should take place and precisely who will carry it out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury indicated, the role of the medical review officer is crucial.
 The explanatory notes made it clear that the Government were not minded to have random testing. But the clause is fairly loosely drafted and so random testing could be applied. It would help if we knew precisely how specimens will be taken. Can we have an assurance that tests will be carried out in as confidential a manner as possible? For the most part, will the test take place only where an accident has occurred or where there is a reasonable suspicion that that person is unfit for duty? I hope that the Minister will confirm that the clause will be interpreted in the narrowest possible way. 
 The hon. Member for Bath referred to an aircraft being in a public place. By the nature of their duties 
 many of the personnel will be with the public at their place of work when they are tested. One is again reminded of the recent case that was sensitively handled when a British Airways pilot was whisked away for tests to be performed. Can the Minister confirm that the tests will be performed in a private location away from the general public? Presumably it will be somewhere within the airport confines. 
 Will confidentiality be preserved as far as possible, especially where someone is arousing suspicion that they may be unfit for duty. As my hon. Friend for Uxbridge said earlier, they might have a medical condition that has been compounded by medication. It may even be something as innocent as a cold medicine. One is always innocent until proved guilty. I hope that the confidentiality of the testing will be respected. Will the Under-Secretary tell us how the test results will be made available to the individuals concerned? 
 As with road, rail and maritime provisions, the procedure for taking specimens is controversial, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us an assurance that our concerns about clause 93 have been addressed. Drug testing should usually consist of the subject being required to provide a fresh urine specimen. The circumstances in which it is taken are important. It should be done in private and as close to the aircraft as possible in case the specimen fails, thus allowing the individual to report for duty in the usual way. I am not sure whether any time lapse is envisaged for individuals who prove positive in specimen urine testing. If the individual proved to the satisfaction of the constable that he was still fit to perform his work, would he be allowed to do so? 
 That should apply to drug and alcohol testing. Currently, drug testing is used more widely; where we do not have the oral swab, a fresh urine specimen is taken. What of the time lag between the urine sample being taken and the eventuality of the person being found innocent? Would an individual be prevented from carrying out his duties on a particular day? As for alcohol testing, in normal circumstances, an evidential breath analyser is used. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that it is the same type of breathalyser used for road traffic offences—and nothing more sophisticated than that? Again, what is the time frame within which the results are determined? If the result were negative, could the person carry on and perform the requisite duties? 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury referred to his background as a steward. A split sample taken by an individual would usually be analysed only in cases where the outcome was disputed. The medical review officer usually provides a choice of evidential laboratories to supplement samples taken by a particular company. The cost of the analysis is currently borne by the employer, so will the Under-Secretary confirm that that will continue under the new provisions? 
 In responding to departmental questions in the House today, the Secretary of State touched on the 
 Wheeler report. Where a police constable in uniform reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under clause 90, he is invited to apprehend that person and perform the tests. Will the constable himself undertake that duty? I was taken by the content of a question put to the Secretary of State by one of his hon. Friends—I am not sure which—and I believe that clause 93 provides a powerful argument for rationalisation and co-ordination among the police. Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether the airport police or, in the event of a heightened state of security, a military man or Army officer could be involved, or would such an officer be excluded as not caught by the Bill? 
 I should like clarification on specimens. Who will the police constable be? Will a member of the local police force be invited to take a blood, urine or breath sample or will that be someone from the Metropolitan police, in the case of one of the London airports? 
 On cost, will the Minister take the opportunity to explain whether he expects that the company will pay, or whether the charge will be added to the general burden of the taxpayer?

David Jamieson: Let me respond initially to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The Minister does not have to respond to the amendment, because it has been dealt with.

David Jamieson: Has the hon. Member for Bath withdrawn it? He confused me because he mentioned his amendment.

Don Foster: It may assist the Under-Secretary if I tell him that the amendment was not called by the Chairman, in view of a drafting error in it. I therefore raised under clause stand part exactly the same points that I would have made under the amendment.

David Jamieson: I think that part of the confusion has arisen because we have clauses and amendments with similar numbers.
 Clause 93 aims to replicate as far as possible existing drink-driving legislation for other transport modes, as in the earlier part of the Bill, on the setting of maximum alcohol limits and associated enforcement powers. It adopts the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 on the testing regime for suspected drink-drivers, amended where necessary to suit aviation. The advantage of that is that police officers will be broadly familiar with the legislation from the outset and able to use tried and trusted procedures developed from the road traffic sector when testing suspects in the aviation sector. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned random testing. The clause says nothing on that. The police will carry out tests on the grounds of reasonable suspicion, as they do on the roads and will do, now that we have accepted that part of the Bill, in the maritime sector. It is anticipated that the tests will be of the same type as those used for road traffic offences. The hon. Lady asked whether the tests would be carried out in private. I hope that a urine test would not be carried out in public. I am sure that great good 
 sense will prevail in such matters. There is a fair amount of experience of carrying out such tests on people suspected of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drink. Similar procedures will probably apply here.

Anne McIntosh: My point was not facetious. If the urine test proves negative, and there is no drug or alcohol in the system, the falsely accused person should be allowed to carry on as fit for work, because they have passed the test. Where will the urine sample be taken and processed to allow that person, if they were fit for work, to continue with their duties that day?

David Jamieson: In the case of a road offence, a person is asked for a urine or blood test only on the basis of having failed a breath test. It is very unlikely that the urine test would be processed there and then. I daresay that there would be a lapse of time before that was processed and the results were available.

Anne McIntosh: The point is that the circumstances in which such specimens will be taken are very different from those in which a road traffic specimen would be taken. There might be cases in which a whole 747 or 777 flight of people were waiting because there was a reasonable suspicion that someone was drunk or under the influence of drugs. If it was found that they were not, they could then fly the plane to wherever it was meant to go.

David Jamieson: We are talking about cases in which the person has shown through the initial test that there is a problem. If the person passed the breath test and was thereby fit for work, they would be free to get on with it. If they did not pass the breath test, and other samples were taken, I would not expect the 747 to hang around for some seven days with passengers on board while the blood sample was analysed. The company would probably make other arrangements.
 The hon. Lady also raised drug testing. There is no accurate and reliable mechanism for such testing at the moment, but should one be introduced in relation to roads, part 5 of the Bill will allow us to introduce them for the aviation sector, too. To complete my point about confidentiality, there are relevant safeguards for the suspect in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and those, of course, will apply. 
 Costs will come from central funds, and will usually be claimed from the defendant if he is convicted. It is up to the court how much has to be paid. I hope that we can now come to the stand part debate.

Don Foster: The Minister is clearly still slightly confused. During this stand part debate, Mr. Hood, you, at least, will recall that I asked the Minister to explain why the provisions relating to roads and shipping refer to accidents occurring owing to the presence of either a car or a ship in a public place, and why there is no such reference to an aircraft in a public place in the clause. We were awaiting the Minister's answer.

Anne McIntosh: I press the point home by supporting what the Secretary of State has said about joined-up police forces. I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for the assurances and responses
 that he has given so far, but he did not say who would do the policingwhether it would be British airport police, the Metropolitan police, privately employed security police or an Army officer, in the rarer cases in which one is present. To which police force will the constable belong for the purposes of clause 93?

David Jamieson: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bath; I was beguiled by the arguments of the hon. Member for Vale of York.
 The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred was partly defective in that it referred to maritime personnel. We had discussed that. By including accidents involving aircraft in a public place, a significant number of potential aviation accident sites could be excluded. That is certainly the case for runways and perhaps the greater part of the rest of an aerodrome, where aircraft are moving. I am unfamiliar with having to say such things, but perhaps the hon. Member for Bath will bear with me. He raised a good point, and we would like to return to it later.

Don Foster: Is the Minister saying that he too thinks that there is a peculiarity that needs to be sorted out? If there is, perhaps he could tell us so in simple language, because I am confused about what he said. Broadly speaking, is the Minister saying, ''Oh, all right Don, we'll look at it''?

David Jamieson: Try as he may, the hon. Gentleman will not put words in my mouth. His argumentseven that contained in his deficient amendmenthad some merit, and we would like to revisit them at the appropriate time.

John Randall: Perhaps it would help the Minister and the hon. Member for Bath if I gave the example of an aeroplane that landed on the A40 over Northolt. That incident did not result from alcohol or drug misuse, but it might be considered to have happened in a public place in which an accident was caused by an aircraft. When the Minister looks at the provision, perhaps he might consider that.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we wanted to reflect on the matter.
 As was the case with the previous section on maritime issues, any police constable in uniform could carry out the tests. It could be airport or local police, and so on. However, if police other than Home Office police were involved, we would expect there to have been some training. 
 The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) asked some time ago about the NATS operating licence. That section of the Bill had only to do with the individual air traffic controller's licence and was not relevant to the overall NATS licence. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 6 March at five minutes to Nine o'clock.